AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Tamilvanan, J.—These appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1993 made in O.S. Nos. 307/88, 4/89, 5/89
and 6/89 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.
The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. Nos. 5/89, 4/89, 307/88 and O.S. No. 6 of 1989 respectively. As all the cases are
similar in nature having similar issues involved the Court below, had tried all the cases together and rendered the impugned common judgment
dated 29.10.1993. All the suits were filed seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondents herein to refer the award passed by the second
respondent, to the Land Acquisition Tribunal and also for consequent injunction restraining the respondents from recovering any amount from the
appellants and also for the costs.
The suit in O.S. No. 5/89 relating to A.S. No. 324 of 1997, was filed by Asmath Bee. According to her the land in S. No. 933/2Bl an extent of
1230 sq.ft. in Boganapalli village belongs to her was acquired by the respondents. As per the suit in O.S. No. 4/89 relating to A.S. No. 325 of
1997 the land in S. No. 933/2-1 an extent of 2400 sq.ft. in 122 Boganapalli village, Krishnagiri Taluk was acquired by the respondent. The suit in
O.S. No. 307 of 1988 is a similar suit relates to A.S. No. 326 of 1997. The appellant/plaintiff-Kamrun filed the aforesaid suit stating that the land
in S. No. 933/2B1A, an extent of.1230 sq.ft. in Boganapalli village, Krishnagiri Taluk belonged to her was acquired by the respondents. The O.S.
No. 6 of 1989 relates to A.S. No. 349 of 1999 according to the appellant/plaintiff-Padma bai, her land in S. No. 933/2B1 an total extent of 1200
sq.ft. in Boganapalli village, Krishnagiri Taluk was acquired by the respondents. According to the appellants, the lands were acquired by the
respondents for the purpose of forming a bus stand for Annai Sathya Transport Corporation.
The point for determination in all these appeals are:
Whether the finding of the Court below in respect of the suit filed by the appellants, as barred by limitation is sustainable in law?
Mr. Mohamed Shariff, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there was no legal notice after the award was passed by the
respondents. Though there was a protest by the aforesaid appellants/claimants that the amounts of compensation awarded were inadequate for the
acquired lands, the same were not referred to by the respondents u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for disposal, by the Land Acquisition
Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel, the Trial Court without considering the merits of the cases, has summarily dismissed the suits on the
ground that the suits were barred by limitation.
Per contra, Mr. K. Chelladurai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there were notices sent to all the appellants,
subsequent to 4(1) notification and enquiry was also conducted and that the claimants had participated in the enquiry, but received the award
amounts without any protest. Hence, there was no reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
According to the respondents, the suits filed by the appellants were barred by limitation and as such, legally not maintainable. Learned Counsel
appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W. 1, Kamrun, who has admitted in. her evidence that on
05.10.1982, she had received notice relating to the land acquisition proceedings from the second respondent and went to the office of the
Tahsildar, Hosur. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, during the enquiry, the appellants had asked for adequate compensation.
Subsequently, on 19.10.1982, there was another notice to get the award amount and they claimed enhancement of compensation amount,
however, they were advised to get the enhancement of compensation through Court of law, but there was no reference u/s 18 of the Act. As per
Ex. A2, the then Krishnagiri Tahsildar asked P.W. 1 to appear on 16.12.1986 otherwise, to return the money that was already received by her.
She was also informed that amount should be recovered as per Revenue Recovery Act. P.W. 2-Halima Bee has also admitted that she had
received notice, relating to the land acquisition proceedings, on 05.10.1982 and on 19.10.1982, she received another notice for getting the award
amount. According to her, she asked enhancement of compensation, but she was asked to get enhanced compensation, through court of law. Ex.
A3 is an unregistered agreement between Halima bee and one Rameela bee filed by the claimant. P.W. 3-Piyaru Bai husband of the claimant has
also admitted that on 05.10.1982, the. claimant had received a notice relating the land acquisition proceedings and subsequently, on 19.10.1982,
she went to the Tahsildar''s office and claimed enhancement of compensation. P.W.4-Padma bai has also deposed similar evidence as that of all
the other claimants. Ex. A5 is the-registered sale deed dated 07.09.1980, as per the sale deed, 1230sq.ft. of land in S. No. 933/2B1 had been
sold to Asmath bee by one Venugopal for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. Ex.A6 is the notice issued by Tahsildar to Asmath bee and Ex. A7 is a similar
notice issued by the Tahsildar against Padma bai, the fourth respondent.
In all these suits, it has been admitted by the appellants/claimants that they had received notices from the respondents on 05.10.1982 with
regard to the land acquisition proceedings and they attended the enquiry on 05.10.1982 and 19.10.1982. The compensation amounts, as per the
awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer were received, without any protest. As contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the
appellants have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they had received the award amounts under protest, and requested the
Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Tribunal, u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents further contended that as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants could have made their representation in writing
within six weeks from the date of award to the Collector and as per Sub-section 2(a) of Section 18 within six months, from the date of the
Collector''s award for reference to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
Sub-section 2(a) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows, regarding reference made to Court for determination:
(a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of
the Collector''s award.
As contemplated u/s 18 of the Act, it is clear that after passing the award, the claimants could have asked the respondents, to refer the matter to
the land acquisition tribunal within the time limit stipulated u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
In the instant case, though there was notice from the respondents admittedly served on 05.10.1982, and also subsequent notice on
19.10.1982 and also received the compensation, they had not asked the respondents in writing, to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition
Tribunal for enhancement of compensation, even the amounts were not received under protest. As per the decree, the suit was filed by the
appellants only on 05.10.1989, nearly six years after the award was passed by the respondents. Even if it is an independent suit, it could have been
filed within three years, after the receipt of notice, with reference to the award, as per Limitation Act. The contention of the learned Counsel that
there was no notice after the award passed by the respondent cannot be accepted, as there is a clear admission in the evidence of the appellants.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree, so as to warrant
any interference. As the suits are barred by limitation, the appellants are not entitled to get any mandatory injunction to direct the respondents to
refer the award to Court. Similarly the second prayer is also not legally maintainable as there is no threat to recover the amount from the appellants
under the Revenue Recovery Act, nearly 25 years after the receipt of the amount. Hence, the point for determination is answered in favour of the
respondents and against the appellants.
In the result, all the appeals fail, hence, confirming the common Judgment and Decree of the court below, all the appeals are dismissed. However,
there is no order as to costs.